>And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did.
Um, are you just blanking 2004 out of your head? This is just the same stuff all over again. All of the screaming and shouting about birth certificates and generally shady connections? His ultimate Muslim agenda to bring down the Great Satan that is America?
Absolutely nothing of worth is coming from the leaked documents, despite all hell being raised about a smoking gun (that no one can point to) in them. It literally is a witch hunt. If these past 4 elections aren't going to kill the GOP in general, I don't know if anything will. It should be disgusting the out right lies and propaganda that they employ, with a complete lack of integrity and standards. But people still buy into the juicy conspiracy theories and the generally "known and accepted" unknowns.
If HRC is the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics, then then last 4 decades of investigations and general obstructionism were undertaken by the most incompetent politicians in the history of politics. Not just one, a whole collection of individuals (senators, house members, governors) from one party who despite their best efforts continually fails at proving claims they have no problem repeating until people start to believe them.
>Huff is full of titles Trump is sexual predator without facts, just talks.
We have, on record, him describing sexual assault. With his own words. On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them. On top of the fact that there is zero evidence in favor of that statement.
That's the difference. And you would definitely know this if you weren't being disingenuous.
> On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them.
Yet other women have consistently claimed over decades that Clinton sexually assaulted them. And today women are coming forward accusing Trump of sexual assault.
There seems to be very little difference; both men have probably assaulted women in the past and abused their power to get away with it. I don't think arbitrarily slanting the narrative to defend one and condemn the other serves anybody. In fact, sweeping sexual assault under the rug when it doesn't serve your political agenda is a pretty horrible thing to do.
We have him on record joking around with someone about actions he didn't take. It's hardly the confession the breathless Twitter hordes want it to be, not to ruin your emotionally resonating state of being
That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fact that Fox News will continually post stories about how Global Warming is a hoax, which is something the Huffington Post definitely won't do. The Huffington Post tends to write click-baity headlines, but they've never out right used lies in their articles. That's not bias, it's an observable trend.
And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ.
Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. The fact is both sides have bias and talk about things that for whatever reason they find most important. And usually it bothers other side of the political spectrum so it's like a never ending loop from both sides.
> And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ.
I'm decidedly not a fan of HuffPo, but this is a massive distortion. No-one is disputing that biological sex exists, and that's what science supports. The matter of gender, and various associated concepts such as gender roles and norms, is completely different - and there is plenty of research to support the idea that a lot of entrenched gender stereotypes are largely or purely a social construct.
No one is denying this. People are saying there's a significant difference between bias that influences the ways facts are portrayed, and bias that causes facts to be invented.
They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed.
>Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong.
No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just
pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.
>primarily the low quality of Google's SDK for Android.
This has always been my biggest frustration with Android. I've written a few applications for the platform, and while their architecture leaves a lot to be desired I've never had any real problems with it. However, the immense disappoint and anger that comes from their SDK idiosyncrasies is astounding. Google really just hates stability and nice API's, in my opinion. Everything from GAE to Android, it's always just so terribly frustrating to keep track of any one-off decisions they make without any form of actual communication from the development team.
Yeah, all because people wanted to scream "bias." Sadly the community here seemed apt to agree with it, but I definitely have my opinions on that. Quoted from a previous thread:
>Did the standard for their sources remain relatively constant regardless of the material being discussed? There isn't a clear answer here, but that doesn't make it defacto censorship of one set of particular political opinions. The sources that were discussed aren't credible in any meaningful form. The fact that they happen to be largely conservative seems like a problem conservatives should address instead of calling it censorship.
But ironically, for posting that, I was meant with censorship.
People in aggregate are terrible at curation. You really do need editors for a reason. But Facebook should have been extremely blunt about the situation before. The fact that its curators let through more "liberal" sources than conservative ones, doesn't necessarily mean they're biased. It really could just be that conservative sources are far more likely to not be at a high enough standard to be posted -- which seems to be the case given the examples in the article.
> But ironically, for posting that, I was meant with censorship.
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but this comes across as "when my opinion is downvoted then it's censorship, but when views I don't agree with are downvoted it's because they are not at a high enough standard".
Not fully sure what you mean here. I did not downvote your comment. I also have no idea what "seems like an incredibly disingenuous statement". I posted how your comment comes off to me, in case you were not aware it was coming off that way, or in case I was misinterpreting then perhaps you would clarify.
I'm not sure what you want me to clarify? At no point did I indicate that it's okay to downvote people you disagree with. They should constructively contribute to the conversation, and in cases where they are not, the downvote button should be used.
There are plenty of low-quality left-wing news sources too, but the high-quality sources definitely trend to the left for some reason. Breitbart and Huffington Post are both tabloid garbage, but at least there are highbrow counterparts to Huffington Post.
Not really. The right in the US has gone through several compaction cycles that drummed the RINOs, moderate conservatives, blue-dog Democrats, etc out of office and the party. Republicans are far, far away from being a "big tent" party. It's ideological purity or get purged in the primaries.
By virtue of the two-party system in the US there is only one place left for rational thinking people to end up. This election cycle is producing an even stronger compaction cycle than the last three combined. As the base gets ever more rabid and detached from reality more people flee. (Some on the Left are pissed that the Dems have been moderating too much)
I can't predict the future but it is possible we are looking at a major fracture of the GOP and political re-alignment. It has happened 2-3 times in the past. If I had to guess the Rs will fracture into two or more parties, the Ds will run the table for a decade or two, then things will reset as a new party rises to replace the GOP and peels off D voters.
If Donald Trump keeps claiming he lost due to fraud/the media/some other boogeyman I don't see how the Republicans can keep it together. If nothing else he showed the wanna-be hucksters how to really appeal to the hardcore Republican base. Many astute eyes have been watching and will be ready to replicate his efforts at the local and national level. The Right-wing echo chamber has taught the base that all media are liars, you can't trust government, etc. There is no authority left who can tell them what is a false conspiracy theory and what is truth. Anyone who doesn't buy the conspiracies is branded a traitor and the compaction cycle marches ever onward.
Compaction Cycles are where a group turns inward looking for people to blame. Sometimes there is an obvious cause, sometimes it's just general discontent. People point fingers and anyone who isn't quick enough to jump on the group-think train is purged. Moderate or un-committed members are driven out, (see Tea Party candidates primary-ing a bunch of Rs out).
If the movement experiences a failure this can manifest as the blame-game too - see McCain/Romney. When they clinched the nomination various places like r/pol and Freep went on huge purges of anyone not backing them. When they lost the group-think proclaimed it was because they weren't true conservatives. Like fascism, communism, and other -isms conservativism cannot fail, it can only be failed. Compromise is a moral failing. If the leaders just /conservatived even harder/ they would finally win.
When Trump inevitably loses (remember: he hasn't been forecasted to win once since he started running and demographic trends make it almost impossible for Republicans to win the presidency anymore) there will be another massive purge and a huge wave of angry people looking to blame someone. A certain segment of the R base won't believe he lost. They will claim the election was stolen.
I think that may be true, but only because what is widely considered and presented as fact by the most mainstream sources of information actually have a significant center left bias. I think it's generally missed because people confuse bias as having to do with having a more extreme political position, when you can actually be biased in favor of any part of the political spectrum including the center.
As someone with a left-leaning bias, I agree with your assessment, if only in the sense that the loudest and most powerful voices in the most reputable newsrooms tend to also have (implicit) left-leaning biases. I would love for their to be a conservative equivalent (this was the reason for the founding of Fox News pre-Ailes: get a bunch of conservatives in the newsroom and have them do their jobs to the best of their ability, following an implicit rather than explicit bias).
Does any equivalent exist today (eg trying to report as an outlet run by conservatives instead of a conservative outlet)?
In the case you describe, "they" tend to be a) propagandists and b) poorly-informed people robotically repeating the last political meme those propagandists spoon-fed them.
How so? You're the one proposing they do the same thing when they fundamentally do not. To posit so is less of git's "ux problem" and more of just needing to grok git.
I share your concerns for consistent tooling, but the idea of becoming proficient in something without putting in the effort is not reality.
This seems extremely pointless. At worst, this seems like the Gitless team doesn't understand what Git is doing internally, which is a pretty dangerous state to be in when you're trying to "improve" something.
Git as a whole:
* Makes it really hard for you to do something you really shouldn't be doing
* Forces you to stay "clean" and guides you to working well with other repository copies (i.e. the whole point of Git).
* Warns you and makes suggestions when you make a mistake, from silly typos to incorrect command flags.
* Makes it easy to guess how the command should be formatted or how certain structures are formatted based on convention.
They decided to rename certain features that not only give you the wrong idea of what's actually going on, but will no doubt make it extremely hard to research any errors if something goes wrong. A good example of thing is gitless' "fusing" feature. It's just rebasing stuff. Why rename it? Why rename "checkout" with "switch", when this semantic is used throughout git?
And then you have completely brain-damaged concepts such as this:
>(i.e., a file can be untracked on some branch but tracked on another and Gitless will remember this):
Honestly? There was no better way to indicate to me that you're just trying to make git fit some erroneous concepts in your head, and that you don't really understand what you're doing. This combined with the "auto-save" feature seems like a terribly, terribly bad idea and is just begging for a lazy developer who didn't take the time to understand his tools to completely shit on the repository he's working on, locally or remotely.
Take the time to understand your tools. Git is incredibly simple underneath. It's not complicated.
Uh, what? You respond to my post with some of the problems with this system in a hyperbolic, confronting manner without contributing anything. They are not "making the world a better place."
Someone makes a project trying to make something easier to learn (so, trying to make the world a better place), and you call it "extremely pointless", you tell them they "don't understand Git", they're "brain-damaged", "erroneous", they should "take the time to understand their tools", because the tools are "not complicated" and "incredibly simple".
Besides your arrogant "I'm right, you're stupid and wrong, and there's no questioning me" attitude, why would you take such a hostile tone towards anyone's work, ever? How could you think that's okay or constructive?
I'm hugely sympathetic to the opinion that Git is needlessly difficult to learn and needless easy to make mistakes in due to huge flaws in the CLI. I'd present that case, but, hey, it's presented a hundred times here and everywhere else. It's clear there's no point arguing that point to you, though, because I'd be stupid and wrong just for disagreeing with you. So instead I'm trying to convey that your arrogance is unacceptable in the community in the hopes that it will not reappear.
>Someone makes a project trying to make something easier to learn (so, trying to make the world a better place)
Again, spare me the hyperbolic the "trying to make the world a better place." The principle behind my post, as given in my very first statement is that they basically failed. They are gearing people towards failure. It would have been better to just create a thin layer on top of git with slightly renamed or alias commands -- all while having "release valves" that guide you into the true, underlying community crafted toolset underneath that git has been using for years (and for very good reason). Any errors you're likely to come across while using git have been documented either by the team or in various posts around the internet. It's easy to search for these errors. If your target audience are developers who have a hard time with Git, why would you make it needlessly hard to research errors that are likely to happen (given how new this tooling is). For example: labeling rebasing as "fusing" is basically telling them: "haha, good luck googling what just went wrong!". Good luck hopping on an IRC or Slack channel and getting someone to help you. A decade of community problem solving and documentation just went out the window because the Gitless team decided to play musical semantics with commands.
>why would you take such a hostile tone towards anyone's work, ever?
Leave your ego at the door. We're talking about a toolset.
>Besides your arrogant "I'm right, you're stupid and wrong, and there's no questioning me" attitude
Please do not respond to any of my posts in this thread anymore, especially if that is the basis of this comment chain. That is a ridiculous sentiment and I'm not going to devote any effort into addressing it.
>I'm hugely sympathetic to the opinion that Git is needlessly difficult to learn and needless easy to make mistakes
I would strongly disagree about the "needlessly difficult" part, but I would also claim that the "easy to make mistakes" is demonstrably false with Git. Git makes it extremely difficult again to do something you should not be doing in the first place and then the community over the years has placed plenty of warnings when you do those questionable actions anyways; on top of giving you the ability to revert the mistake and bring your repository to a sane place with one simple command. Checking out branches with conflicting changes is just one of the simpler safety checks and roadblock that Git provides where Gitless decided to just go "Nah, you can actually do that." with seemingly no apology as to why you would ever want to allow such a thing -- other than just for the sake of convenience, but I would label it as laziness as it makes it incredibly easy to pollute your repository at that point. It doesn't even provide any kind of warning mechanism or cleanup tool for this handy "feature."
>So instead I'm trying to convey that your arrogance is unacceptable in the community in the hopes that it will not reappear.
The only thing worse than calling me arrogant is your complete, unconstructive obliviousness towards your own attitude. Not only have you still failed to say anything worthwhile or present any kind of counter to my opinion, but you're being a complete dick about it and trying to label me in a negative light for no reason. Which ends up really at the end of the day making you a troll at worst and a hypocrite at best.
I am not talking about a toolset. I'm talking about how I believe you have a "I'm right, you're stupid and wrong" attitude. So I'm not disputing your opinion about Gitless, I'm criticizing how you presented it. I don't think the sentiment is ridiculous, because I think it's correct; clearly if you write it off as ridiculous then we're just talking past each other. Similarly, I don't think I am labeling you in a negative light for "no reason": the reason is that you are acting in a way that I think deserves to be called out negatively, so as to hopefully dissuade you from acting that way.
I do happen to think Gitless is a noble effort that will not change the world or be adopted by much of anyone, as with many interesting projects that are posted here, but I still think you should be non-hostile towards it, and sympathetic instead of dismissive towards the problem it is trying to solve (since clearly there are heaps of people who feel the same way, as evidenced by these and many other comment threads).
> I'm not going to respond to you anymore past this
Feedback from the outside: ajkjk strikes me as someone making reasonable points and who is capable of productive discussion. You are coming across as unnecessarily arrogant and prickly, and thus someone with whom it's best to avoid discussion.
Maybe you are an extremely fluent but non-native speaker of English and your idioms aren't coming across as you want? Or maybe you just prefer a more "aggressive" approach than we are comfortable with?
In any case, independent of the technical merit of your arguments, you might reconsider ajkjk's criticism, as I think there are many others (like me) who agree with it.
You consider his first post to be productive? You must be dreaming.
> ajkjk strikes me as someone making reasonable points
He is not making any point, so it's weird that you would say that. He hypocritically stated I was coming off as arrogant. Fair game, even though I really don't see how it remotely comes off that way, but you can't exempt yourself from your own criticism in a post that does not constructively further the conversation in any way.
> You are coming across as unnecessarily arrogant and prickly, and thus someone with whom it's best to avoid discussion.
Apparently so, but I don't see it. I gave my opinion, and that was it.
>you might reconsider ajkjk's criticism
I most definitely will not, as this is a technical discussion. I'm not going to muddle the waters. Nothing I said was needlessly "arrogant" (at what point was puffing myself up?) -- and if it was prickly then I'd question why it was chosen to focus on that aspect of it instead of directly countering what was stated.
When discussing technical matters: leave your ego at the door. At every turn I gave him a chance to actually discuss something and he refused to do so. The fact that you decided to continue this non-sense is mind-boggling to me. What's the point?
I most definitely will not, as this is a technical discussion.
For better or worse, like most discussions, it also has social aspects. Consideration of these aspects may help you better convey your technical points.
What's the point?
Based on your comment history, you have technical knowledge that others could benefit from, but aren't very successful in getting your point across without being downvoted or flagged. If you continue with your current approach, at some point your account will likely be banned. Whether they are exactly accurate or not, I think contemplating ajkjk's criticisms may help provide you insight that will allow you to have better interactions with HN.
The fact that you decided to continue this non-sense is mind-boggling to me.
I am generally a very technical person, I use git frequently and only by the command line interface, I think I mostly understand the underlying operations, and yet I frequently am baffled by the commands required to get from where I am to where I want to be. While I likely can overcome this through study and repetition, I think git would be a more useful tool for others in the future if the user facing command line interface was improved.
Viewed over the longer term (and I say this as someone who approached git through RCS, CVS, and SVN and likes the improvements Git offers) the current interface is not perfect, is not set in stone, and improvements are a good thing. Assumptions that the 'gitless' authors are only doing this because they do not properly understand the internals of git are likely incorrect. While I don't think 'gitless' quite has the right solution, I think attempts to better align git's command line interface with the underlying operations are commendable, not pointless, and decidedly not nonsense.
>Consideration of these aspects may help you better convey your technical points.
And yet despite him blatantly confronting me in an aggressive personal manner, you've ignored his original post and decided to focus on my post, all in spite of my attempts to keep the conversation on topic. Most likely because you agree with him. It really removes any credence from his post and other posts echoing him about my original post being "prickly" when you're a complete dick to someone directly. Talk about arrogance.
I can't call a technical concept brain damaged, but aggressively labeling people in a confrontational manner is a-okay. Got it.
>and yet I frequently am baffled by the commands required to get from where I am to where I want to be.
Have an example? Most of the examples I've seen come from a fundamental misunderstanding about what git is doing. Git is rarely in the wrong.
There's a lot of internal plumbing commands that are completely backwards (or just have not been updated to align with the rest of the toolset) but an extremely small majority of people will ever even know about them, let alone have to use them. Especially if you're just starting out with git.
>think attempts to better align git's command line interface with the underlying operations are commendable
Except as presented in the examples I've given, it's doing the exact opposite of this. It's going against the very basic foundation of git. Git is an acyclic graph with each node representing a change delta from its "parent." The very fact that branches suddenly keep track of which specific changesets (tracked or not!) belong to them is completely counter to how the very core of git works.
Um, are you just blanking 2004 out of your head? This is just the same stuff all over again. All of the screaming and shouting about birth certificates and generally shady connections? His ultimate Muslim agenda to bring down the Great Satan that is America?
Absolutely nothing of worth is coming from the leaked documents, despite all hell being raised about a smoking gun (that no one can point to) in them. It literally is a witch hunt. If these past 4 elections aren't going to kill the GOP in general, I don't know if anything will. It should be disgusting the out right lies and propaganda that they employ, with a complete lack of integrity and standards. But people still buy into the juicy conspiracy theories and the generally "known and accepted" unknowns.
If HRC is the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics, then then last 4 decades of investigations and general obstructionism were undertaken by the most incompetent politicians in the history of politics. Not just one, a whole collection of individuals (senators, house members, governors) from one party who despite their best efforts continually fails at proving claims they have no problem repeating until people start to believe them.